PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Most damningly, Dr MOLES told the Committee: Mr
Keogh’s wrongful conviction was not as a result of some unforeseen
event. It resulted from the continued employment of a person who is
known by senior state officials and by the state itself to be not only
incompetent but also dishonest. As we pointed out in our written
submission, for a person to be imprisoned on the basis of evidence known
to be false by those whose duty it was to uphold the law is an
unspeakable outrage, as it says in the cases. To fabricate evidence, it says in the cases, with a view to
charging a person with a serious criminal offence is itself a species of
criminality at the extreme end of official corruption. It is clearly
inappropriate to suggest that Mr Keogh (photo above) is not due some
compensation for the terrible wrong which he has suffered. The offer of
settlement by the state of a modest amount of compensation which would
prevent the need for further inquiry into the history of this matter can
clearly be seen, at least on one view, to be in the interest of the
state. In the fullness of time, the amount awarded to him will be judged
to have been extremely favourable to the state. However, we are of the
opinion that there should be a royal commission into this matter, and we
would respectfully request this committee to support that view. "------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTARY: "Why Dr Bob Moles is calling for a Royal Commission," by Andrew L. Urban, published by The Wrongful Convictions Report, on November 13, 2018. (Andrew L. Urban is the author of Murder by the Prosecution (Wilkinson Publishing), about wrongful convictions.)

SUB-HEADING: "Giving explosive evidence before the Budget and
Finance Committee of the South Australian Legislative Council (November
5, 2018), Dr Bob Moles outlined why he believes a Royal Commission is
needed into the State’s several failures in allowing the unqualified and
discredited forensic pathologist Dr Colin Manock to continue his work –
unchecked for decades."

GIST: Dr
Moles (left), a legal academic and author specialising in miscarriages
of justice, was invited to give evidence (under Parliamentary privilege)
to the Committee investigating the Government’s ex-gratia payment to
Henry Keogh, who had spent 20 years in jail for the murder of his
fiancée, Anna-Jane Cheney which the appeal court in 2014 found he did
not commit. In the course of his evidence, Dr Moles traced the history
of grave errors in Dr Manock’s work through the years, and the many
instances when his failures were well known and acknowledged by various
agents of the State.

The following extracts from the transcript of the hearing convey the
extent of incompetence and worse within the SA legal system, including –
spectacularly – the mystery of why a Solicitor General failed to
disclose exculpatory evidence to a man convicted of murder.

At one stage in the proceedings, The Hon. F. PANGALLO asked Dr Moles: Does
it shock you that it has been covered up for decades—the ineptitude and
incompetence of that department under Dr Colin Manock—even to this day?

Dr MOLES: When I first heard of the issues that were being raised
here in South Australia, I didn’t actually believe that that was
possible. It is only because of the continued research that we have
done—and we have established the evidence for ourselves—that I have been
able to convince myself that this horror has actually occurred.

Dr Manock did 10,000 autopsies after the state declared that he wasn’t competent to certify cause of death.

One of the things that is perfectly clear that has come from our
international studies is that there is no other jurisdiction in the
common law world where a person has been declared by the state to be
unqualified and incompetent and then allowed to continue as a forensic
expert, giving expert evidence in courts after the state has already
cleared that he actually is not qualified as an expert.

---------------------------------------------------------

Shortly after that exchange, Dr MOLES stated: Dr
Manock undertook the giving of evidence in 400 criminal trials after
the state had declared that he wasn’t qualified as an expert witness.
Those cases will all have to be reviewed. Dr Manock did 10,000 autopsies
after the state declared that he wasn’t competent to certify cause of
death. All of those autopsies would have to be reviewed and all of those
families would have to be notified that their loved one was subject to
an autopsy procedure by a man who wasn’t qualified. Now, that’s a very difficult call to make, but it is a call that
we must make if we are concerned about the rule of law and living in a
civilised society, because otherwise the law is just going to be turned
into a bit of a charade behind which we all just get on and do as we
please, and that’s totally unacceptable.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Okay. Just for the record, I have written
to the Coroner, asking him to look at conducting an inquest into the
death of Anna-Jane Cheney. Do you think that would be a significant
move, and for what reasons?

Dr MOLES: I think it’s a very important move because the Coroner
is the person who has the statutory authority to determine the cause of
death. In relation to Anna-Jane Cheney, the cause of her death has not
yet been determined; therefore, why wouldn’t we go to the only person
who has the statutory authority to make that determination and request
that he do so?

Most damningly, Dr MOLES told the Committee: Mr
Keogh’s wrongful conviction was not as a result of some unforeseen
event. It resulted from the continued employment of a person who is
known by senior state officials and by the state itself to be not only
incompetent but also dishonest. As we pointed out in our written
submission, for a person to be imprisoned on the basis of evidence known
to be false by those whose duty it was to uphold the law is an
unspeakable outrage, as it says in the cases. To fabricate evidence, it says in the cases, with a view to
charging a person with a serious criminal offence is itself a species of
criminality at the extreme end of official corruption. It is clearly
inappropriate to suggest that Mr Keogh (photo above) is not due some
compensation for the terrible wrong which he has suffered. The offer of
settlement by the state of a modest amount of compensation which would
prevent the need for further inquiry into the history of this matter can
clearly be seen, at least on one view, to be in the interest of the
state. In the fullness of time, the amount awarded to him will be judged
to have been extremely favourable to the state. However, we are of the
opinion that there should be a royal commission into this matter, and we
would respectfully request this committee to support that view.

As if that wasn’t damaging enough, there was more: Dr MOLES: My calling for a royal commission has nothing to do with the payment to Mr Keogh. It’s an inquiry into the work of Dr Manock.

I would have been very pleased if the government had asked for a royal commission into the conviction of Mr Keogh

The CHAIRPERSON: In the Splatt case, where the payment was made,
the payment followed a royal commission. Could it be argued, do you
think, that that would have been a sensible way to go in the Keogh
case—for a payment to follow a royal commission rather than the other
way around?

Dr MOLES: I would have been very pleased if the government had
asked for a royal commission into the conviction of Mr Keogh and the
other associated cases because that would have led to compensation
payable not only to Mr Keogh but, I am sure, to many other people as
well. We did raise some years ago the question about the appeal system
in Australia, and we put forward the claim that, because you can only
have one appeal after a conviction, in the situation we found ourselves
in with Mr Keogh we did go to the Court of Appeal and they said, ‘We’re
sorry. We can’t listen to you because he has already had one appeal. You
can’t have a second appeal.’ So then we went to the High Court and they said, ‘Look, we can’t
listen to you either. You’ve got some fresh evidence showing he’s
wrongly convicted?’ ‘Yes, we have.’ ‘Well, we can’t listen to that. We
don’t admit fresh evidence in the High Court.’ ‘What can we do then?’
‘Oh, you can go and talk to the Attorney-General in South Australia, put
in a petition and a submission.’

the Australian appeal system is fundamentally flawed

But the Attorney-General in South Australia, as I understand it,
is responsible for the police, the courts, the forensic services and all
the other agencies involved in a potential wrongful conviction, and so
therefore we didn’t think that there was a fair chance of getting proper
consideration of the issues via the Attorney-General process, although
we had tried. We then put in a submission to the Australian Human Rights
Commission, and we said that the appeal system across the whole of
Australia is flawed. It does not comply with Australia’s international
human rights obligations. The Human Rights Commission in fact agreed
with us. They sent a report to the South Australian parliament stating
that the criminal appeal system in all states and territories in
Australia is flawed, it does not comply with international human rights
obligations, and that’s when this parliament legislated to create a new
statutory right of appeal. That statutory right of appeal has now been
taken up in Tasmania and is in the process of being implemented in
Western Australia. Victoria is also having a look at it. So, yes, we did say that the Australian appeal system is
fundamentally flawed, and alongside of that we have also asserted that
the South Australian legal system has been fundamentally flawed since we
first raised these issues in 2001 because at no time have those issues
that we have raised been properly addressed, and we would like them to
be addressed now or in the very near future.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Dr Moles, can I ask you about the Kourakis*
report into the Vernon-Roberts finding. What would be significant about
the use of that now in relation to the ex gratia payment?

MOLES: First
of all, the Kourakis (photo) report should have been released at the
time it was received. The duty of disclosure is very clear, and we have
covered it in each of the books that we have done. If the Crown receives
information that would be of assistance to the defence, it has an
obligation to make that information available to them. The report
received by Mr Kourakis indicated that there were fundamental flaws in
the case and in fact the forensic evidence did not support a homicide
scenario and in fact supported a slip and fall accident. That clearly
would have been a benefit to the defence to have known about that at the
time. There was a clear duty to disclose that report at the time, and
that was not complied with. What would be the significance of disclosing it now? The
Vernon-Roberts report in a sense has been disclosed, because it was part
of the legal proceedings. What hasn’t been disclosed are the reasons
for not disclosing it in 2004. That of course would be essential,
because obviously the Solicitor-General is a very senior state official,
the most senior legal official in the state and, if he has acted in a
way which is not compliant with the relevant law at the time, then that
of course raises serious questions about why he would do that, and an
explanation should be forthcoming.

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this
case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on
developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than
twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the
harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into
pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.
The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related
to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith.
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination
process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of
interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Turpin
maintains the toddler was injured when she fell in the bathtub and hit
her head. Three
appeal court justices heard Turpin's case this summer, but a re-hearing
was scheduled with two more jurists to revisit a 1979 New Brunswick
Court of Appeal decision that loosened the limits on the expert
witnesses permitted during in a trial. The
number of expert witnesses Judge Judy Clendening allowed during the
three-week trial in June 2016 is a central argument in the defence's
case. Clendening allowed 12 expert witnesses to testify — more
than double the usual five permitted — and the defence argued she didn't
follow legal procedures to allow for more. 'This was overkill.'

------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Defence says too many experts testified at trial of man convicted of killing girl," published by CBC News on November 13, 2018.SUB-HEADING: "In 2016, a jury found James Turpin guilty of 2nd-degree murder in the death of Kennedy Ann Corrigan."

GIST: A
man convicted of second-degree murder in the 2004 death of his
girlfriend's toddler is appealing the conviction in front of an expanded
slate of justices. James Paul Turpin, a Charlo man in his late 30s, was sentenced in 2016 to life in prison with no chance of parole for 10 years. A
jury found him guilty in the death of two-year-old Kennedy Ann
Corrigan, who suffered a fatal brain injury while in his care. Turpin
maintains the toddler was injured when she fell in the bathtub and hit
her head. Three
appeal court justices heard Turpin's case this summer, but a re-hearing
was scheduled with two more jurists to revisit a 1979 New Brunswick
Court of Appeal decision that loosened the limits on the expert
witnesses permitted during in a trial. The
number of expert witnesses Judge Judy Clendening allowed during the
three-week trial in June 2016 is a central argument in the defence's
case. Clendening allowed 12 expert witnesses to testify — more
than double the usual five permitted — and the defence argued she didn't
follow legal procedures to allow for more. 'This was overkill'; Chief
Justice Marc Richard said Tuesday that many witnesses may have
"overwhelmed" the jury, and there was a "danger" the jury relied too
heavily on experts. He wasn't alone in thinking that.

"This was overkill," said Justice Margaret Larlee. "Too much information." The Crown argued all the experts were qualified and necessary. The
defence has also argued the exact cause of Corrigan's death was
"basically undetermined" and a jury couldn't make a decision beyond a
reasonable doubt. Richard also questioned whether there were
reasonable grounds to conclude this was second-degree murder when no one
could say exactly how Kennedy's brain injury occurred. "If you can't explain what exactly what happened, how can you decide it was intentional?" he said. Family fearsThe Court of Appeal can uphold the verdict, lower the offence to manslaughter, order a new trial for Turpin or acquit him. Turpin
was taking care of Kennedy on April 2, 2004, at her Central Blissville
home south of Fredericton, while her mother was at work. The girl suffered a massive brain injury and was rushed unconscious to the Dr. Everett Chalmers hospital in Fredericton. She died a week later at the IWK Health Centre in Halifax after being taken off life support without regaining consciousness. No
charges were laid at the time, but the RCMP's historical homicide unit
reopened the case in 2013, and Turpin was charged in 2015. Ali Corrigan, a cousin of the toddler's mother, said it appears the justices have already made up their minds. "I feel that some of the judges already has an opinion before they heard the arguments. To me, they seemed one-sided." She said she would prefer to see another trial, if it gets to that point. "I
would prefer that over a reduced sentence of manslaughter because, in
my opinion, he either intentionally killed her with the amount of force
of whatever he did to her that day," she said. "A reasonable person
couldn't apply that much force to an infant without knowing they crossed
the line. "It should be a new trial. If they feel there was an
error made in law, OK, let's go back to trial. We'll have five doctors.
They'll still have the opinion that it was a non-accidental death." Turpin, who was in court Tuesday, was granted a conditional release pending the outcome of his appeal."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this
case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on
developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than
twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the
harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into
pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.
The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related
to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith.
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination
process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of
interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Dr.
Ziv was not brought in as an expert witness by Arnold or his legal team
and she's not been paid by them. She was actually hired last year by
the Big Brothers organization to help them figure out how much they
might have to pay in damages in the civil suit. But at the end of her
review, she told them, even though William Arnold had already been
convicted, she didn't believe he'd actually done it."

GIST: "Tennessee prisons are filled with
people who insist they did nothing wrong. But a Nashville man is getting
high-powered support in his fight to be released. William Arnold
is serving a 25-year sentence for aggravated sexual battery and rape of a
child. A Davidson County jury found him guilty in 2013 of sexually
assaulting a 10-year old boy who he'd been mentoring through the Boys
and Girls Club and Big Brothers Big Sisters programs. The
Department of Correction would not let us interview Wiliam Arnold face
to face, but we talked with him by phone. We found both he and a
nationally recognized expert in child sex abuse believe his case
deserves another look. "I still don't believe it's happened to me," Arnold told NewsChannel 5 Investigates during a recent phone call. "Did
you ever sexually assault or inappropriately touch or do anything to
this boy, this now young man?" we asked Arnold by phone. "Never. Never. Never have and never will," he told us. In
a series of phone calls and letters from prison, Arnold told us he was
"wrongly convicted" in a twisted case of "mistaken identity." And now, a renowned forensic psychiatrist says she believes him. Dr.
Barbara Ziv was a key prosecution witness in both the Bill Cosby and
Jerry Sandusky trials and recently shared her expert opinion during a
court hearing on Arnold's case, telling the judge, "I don't think
William Arnold sexually assaulted him," Ziv told us. "I can say William
Arnold's behavior in no way, shape or form conforms to the pattern of
behavior of a child molester or a pedophile." But the mother of Arnold's victim says he did it. She
spoke to us back in 2011 after she'd filed a $3.5 million dollar
lawsuit against William Arnold and Big Brother Big Sisters for allowing,
according to the lawsuit, him to "sexually abuse, assault and molest"
her son. "I know it happened more than maybe ten times," she told us. "My child will never be the same." She
also told in 2011 that Arnold came highly recommended as a mentor as he
had worked for the Tennessee Board of Regents for many years, had
multiple graduate degrees and served on many community and non-profit
boards. But in a sworn deposition, she said that her then
10-year-old began acting out sexually. She asked him if anyone had done
anything sexual to him, if William had touched him, and he finally
nodded yes. But there was another William in the young boy's life
at the time, a 17-year-old who was the younger brother of the mother's
live-in boyfriend. The two were involved in a four to five-month-long
sexual relationship. "The details of that relationship are the
exact same details that he described in what supposedly happened with
me," Arnold suggested during a phone call with NewsChannel 5 Investigates. "His
mother made this assumption," Dr. Barbara Ziv said during her recent
court appearance. "His mother ran with it. Everybody else ran with it.
And nobody ever stopped to say, 'Put on the brakes,' and say, 'Is there
another William?'" Dr. Ziv said she is now convinced it was the "other William" the child was referring to. In
her 157 page report on the case, she described how the victim "was
battling his own sexuality" while his mother refused to accept it. "A
thorough review of all available records makes it clear, she wrote, that
the victim's descriptions of abuse by William Arnold have been
"inconsistent, inaccurate and selective," as well as "contradictory" and
"misleading." And during her recent testimony in court, Dr. Ziv
described interviewing the boy last year when he was 19 and discussing
William Arnold when he suddenly stopped. Dr. Ziv described the
conversation saying the boy said, "I wish this hadn't happened. And I
feel guilty.' 'And I said why?' And he paused and he looked at me and he
asked to go out and call his lawyer and when we came back in, he said,
'My lawyer told me I don't have to talk to you about it.'" Dr. Ziv said the change in his demeanor was so dramatic that it suddenly became very obvious to her. "I said, 'You know what? William Arnold didn't do this,'" Ziv told the court. The
jury in Arnold's criminal case did hear about the other William, but
Arnold said they were led to believe it couldn't have been him, that the
other William was never called to testify, and at the time, the boy
insisted he had not even met the other William until long after Arnold
had assaulted him. But in a videotaped interview with a police
detective and DCS investigator, the other William not only admitted to
having a sexual relationship with the child, but he confirmed that he'd
ended it right about the time the victim's mother confronted her son. Arnold told NewsChannel 5 Investigates Dr. Ziv's new findings in his case give him hope. "It felt like someone lifted a weight off my chest. That someone else sees the truth," he remarked. Truth, he said, after what he calls a "horrible miscarriage of justice". "I'm not perfect. But I'm damn sure not a monster," Arnold added. Dr.
Ziv was not brought in as an expert witness by Arnold or his legal team
and she's not been paid by them. She was actually hired last year by
the Big Brothers organization to help them figure out how much they
might have to pay in damages in the civil suit. But at the end of her
review, she told them, even though William Arnold had already been
convicted, she didn't believe he'd actually done it. The assistant DA who prosecuted the case though told NewsChannel 5 Investigates there's no question in her mind about the case or which William did it."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this
case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on
developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than
twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the
harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into
pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.
The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related
to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith.
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination
process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of
interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: " His
resentencing is set for Nov. 19, where he is expected to receive a life
without parole sentence. (District Attorney Ronnie Harper told the
judge that his office won't seek the death penalty.) Havard's
appeal of the judge's order, however, opens the door for him to
possibly receive the death penalty. For 16 years now, he said he has
felt like he was underwater. Since
2012, he feels he has been rising up in that water, more and more
evidence reflecting his innocence, he said. “Now I’m within an inch or
two of the surface.” But instead of breaking through, the judge’s order
has blocked his way, he said. He
vows to keep fighting. “If it takes a week, if it takes 10 months, if
it takes 10 years, the truth is the truth,” he said. “I want the truth
to come out.”"

STORY: "Why would inmate risk execution? He says he would rather prove innocence and 'die fighting," by reporter Jerry Mitchell, published by The ClarionLedger on November 8, 2018.

SUB-HEADING: "Jeffrey Havard was on Mississippi's death row for nearly 16 years.
So why would he appeal, when it could send him back to death row?

GIST: "Jeffrey Havard became angry when he was removed from Mississippi’s death row in September, nearly 16 years after he entered. His initial reaction to the court tossing out his death sentence
was “worse than doing nothing at all,” Havard said in an interview
inside the Adams County Jail. “I would rather die, taking my chances on
death row and go down being executed, fighting for my innocence, than to
just be thrown into prison, life without parole, and waste away.” His
lawyers plan to appeal the judge’s decision to the state Supreme Court,
opening the door for justices to reimpose the death penalty. So why would anyone risk that? “All I want to do is to be able to tell the jury my story,” Havard said. “I haven’t gotten a chance to do that.” She noticed that Chloe wasn't breathing: It was the night of Feb. 21, 2002, and 6-month-old Chloe Madison Britt was crying. Her mother, Rebecca, was gone, buying something from the store. Havard said he thought Chloe had soiled her diaper, discovering instead she had spit up. He decided to give her a bath, and after she was done, he pulled her out. As he reached for a towel, she was wiggling and fell from his grasp, hitting the toilet, he said. He returned her to his arms, gave her a little shake and spoke to her, he said. “Chloe, are you OK?” She
started crying, he said. “I held her in my arms and made sure she was
OK. I dried her off, and she quit crying. I thought she was OK.” Chloe Madison Britt, 6 months old, died on Feb. 21, 2002. (Photo: Clarion Ledger) When Rebecca returned minutes later, she checked on Chloe, he said. “That eased my mind, and I didn’t say anything.” He said he gave Rebecca money to rent a movie for them to watch. When she returned, she noticed that Chloe wasn’t breathing and began to scream, starting CPR on her daughter. Havard, who was in the bathroom, said Rebecca yelled out for him to go to his grandparents down the road. He said he replied, “No, let’s get in the car and go to the hospital.” At
Natchez Community Hospital’s emergency room, medical personnel
scrambled to revive Chloe, who wasn’t breathing and had no pulse. At 10:04 p.m., they got their first ray of hope. Chloe’s blue skin began to turn pink. They
could see bruises on her forehead and the front of her thighs. A nurse
removed her diaper to take her temperature and said, "Look at this." They noticed the baby's rectum was dilated and called police. Not long after, they lost her pulse. Her face swelled; so did her brain. By 10:50 p.m., doctors declared her dead. 'You're going to be executed for this'; By the time that declaration took place, Havard was already in the back of a squad car. At about 3 a.m., deputies led him from the jail to the interrogation room. It was here, for the first time, that he learned Chloe was dead. “And before I can even react, (the deputy) said, ‘And she’s been raped,’” he recalled. The news stunned Havard. “Son,”
he said the deputy told him, “she’s been ripped from end to end. You
tell us right f---ing now what you did to her, and maybe that will keep
the needle out of your arm up there in Parchman. You’re going to be
executed for this.” The words shocked Havard. “That scared the hell out of me,” he recalled. “I was scared to say I dropped her at that point.” The next day, a hospital conducted a DNA test on him, hoping to link him to the sexual assault. When he returned to the jail, authorities handed him with papers that explained his arrest. He said his head spun as he read the words, accusing him of sexual battery and shaking Chloe to death. Authorities
continue to say Jeffrey Havard is guilty of a heinous homicide, but he
maintains he accidentally dropped 6-month-old Chloe Madison Britt. When
he saw the words “subdural hemorrhage,” he said he realized that
accidentally dropping her on the head may have caused her death. He shared his story with deputies, who pressed him repeatedly on the allegations of rape. He
said he wanted to be helpful and tried to think of what might explain
this, but they continued to believe he had sexually assaulted Chloe. “It was the perfect storm,” he recalled. “It still is.”'Absolute low point of evil and human depravity': In December 2002, Havard went on trial for capital murder. A
parade of witnesses — doctors, nurses, the sheriff and others —
described an anal dilation the size of a quarter, along with tears,
rips, lacerations and bleeding they said they saw in the child’s anal
area. Then-state
pathologist Dr. Steven Hayne told jurors that Havard had shaken the
baby to death, comparing the injuries to those seen in car crashes and
falls from significant heights. No defense experts testified because Judge Johnson wouldn’t permit their hiring. He told defense lawyers they could question Hayne about the death. They didn’t bother. Jurors never heard from Havard, either, because his court-appointed lawyers advised him not to testify. After
40 minutes of deliberation, jurors convicted Havard, who professed his
innocence when he was sentenced, and recommended the death penalty. Circuit
Judge Forrest Johnson told him, “Just when you think that you have seen
everything and that you have seen or heard of the absolute low point of
evil and human depravity, someone like you comes along and shows us a
new low in human behavior." Havard received a sentence of death by lethal injection. "Scientists discredit shaken baby syndrome: In the years that followed the trial, scientists have discredited shaken baby syndrome. In 2001, Minnesota pathologist Dr. John Plunkett conducted a
groundbreaking study, examining Consumer Product Safety Commission
reports involving falls from playground equipment. He concluded
short-distance falls are capable of producing the triad of symptoms
previously identified as shaken baby syndrome. "It's
clear that low velocity, even a 2- or 3-foot fall can cause serious and
fatal brain injury," he told The Clarion-Ledger. "If people had paid
attention to the science, it would not have been a mystery." The
Clarion Ledger questioned Hayne about the changing science. He backed off his shaken baby conclusion, acknowledging the injuries could have
come from a short fall. He cited a 1979 study measuring the falls of children. "You can generate
tremendous G forces in a short distance when you hit a very hard
surface," he said. Sexual assault was the underlying felony charge against Havard that enabled authorities to pursue the death penalty against him. Authorities
believed sexual assault because of the anal dilation, but a 1996 study
found anal dilation was common among children who died, especially those
who suffered brain damage. Hayne told the Clarion Ledger that he informed prosecutors he didn’t see any evidence of sexual assault. A rape kit found no semen or foreign DNA, and he examined those sections under a microscope. His
conclusion? There were no tears, rips or similar injuries to the
child’s rectum, he said. “I would think that would be a definitive
evaluation.” In 2015, the state Supreme Court
ordered a new hearing for Havard, citing the shifting science on shaken
baby syndrome, but justices wouldn’t allow the judge to consider
evidence that no sexual assault took place. Havard vows to keep fighting: 'The truth is the truth'" At that August 2017 hearing, Hayne and four other experts concluded that Chloe did not die of shaken baby syndrome.

Hayne and another prosecution expert still believed her death was a homicide. Renowned
pathologist Dr. Michael Baden of New York City disputed that
conclusion, saying the baby’s injuries were consistent with the fall
Havard described. “With short falls,” he said, “you can have fatal
injuries.” After three days of testimony and hundreds of pages of briefs, Judge Johnson wrote an order that took up less than five pages. Despite
the new evidence on shaken baby syndrome, Johnson concluded that Havard
was just as guilty, citing the testimony of Hayne and Dr. Scott Benton,
chief of the division of forensic medicine at the University of
Mississippi’s Medical Center. But the judge tossed
out the death sentence, concluding that while the evidence was “not
sufficient to undermine this Court’s confidence in the conviction, there
is a cautious disturbance in confidence of the sentence of death, even
if slight.” That conclusion baffled Havard. “If I’m just as guilty as I was before, what disturbs my death sentence?” he asked. And if there is indeed doubt, he asked, wouldn’t that affect his conviction? His
resentencing is set for Nov. 19, where he is expected to receive a life
without parole sentence. (District Attorney Ronnie Harper told the
judge that his office won't seek the death penalty.) Havard's appeal of the judge's order, however, opens the door for him to possibly receive the death penalty. For 16 years now, he said he has felt like he was underwater. Since
2012, he feels he has been rising up in that water, more and more
evidence reflecting his innocence, he said. “Now I’m within an inch or
two of the surface.” But instead of breaking through, the judge’s order has blocked his way, he said. He
vows to keep fighting. “If it takes a week, if it takes 10 months, if
it takes 10 years, the truth is the truth,” he said. “I want the truth
to come out.”"

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this
case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on
developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than
twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the
harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into
pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.
The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related
to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith.
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination
process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of
interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Police
have never found the murder weapon, but have identified it as a Ruger
.22 rifle bought from a Queanbeyan gun dealer shortly before the murder.The
dealer did not identify Mr Eastman as the buyer, but there were
suggestions from other witnesses that Mr Eastman had been seen at the
dealer's house. There was also evidence from witnesses about a
blue car similar to Mr Eastman's in a street near the Winchester family
home in the days before the murder. But
Mr Eastman's lawyer George Georgiou rejected the theories about the
motive, and questioned the evidence from those who sought to link Mr
Eastman to the crime. He took particular aim at the tapes which he said
were of such bad quality as to be not appropriate evidence in a murder
trial. Mr
Georgiou pressed the alternative theory it was a mafia hit, related to
Mr Winchester's involvement investigating drug crops outside Canberra."

-----------------------------------------------------------

KEY POINTS:

Prosecutors say "too many coincidences" for Mr Eastman to be innocent

Defence points to possible mafia involvement

Mammoth trial has run for almost six months.

-------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "David Eastman trial reaches final stretch as jury retires to deliberate," by reporter Elizabeth Byrne, published by ABC News on November 13, 2018.

GIST: "A trial lasting almost six months. Legal documents piling up to 36,000 pages. More than 100 witnesses. Dozens of statements. Those
figures form the backbone of a mammoth decision for 12 men and women as
to whether David Eastman, a former Canberra public servant, shot senior
Australian Federal Police officer Colin Winchester as he got out of his
car in 1989. It is the second time Mr Eastman has been tried over
the killing, after a 2014 inquiry found there had been a miscarriage of
justice because of problems with the original evidence. Prosecutor
Murugan Thangaraj delivered a circumstantial case to the ACT Supreme
Court, telling jurors there were "too many coincidences" for anyone else
to have been the killer. He said Mr Eastman had a motive, after Mr Winchester refused to help him out of assault charges. Mr Thangaraj said Mr Eastman was concerned the charges would harm his years-long bid to return to the public service. Prosecutors also said Mr Eastman had made threats, including telling one person the police should be taught a lesson. Tapes of Mr Eastman talking to himself in his home, which Mr Thangaraj said included admissions, were also played to the jury. And there was also evidence Mr Eastman had been searching for a gun through the Canberra Times classifieds. Police
have never found the murder weapon, but have identified it as a Ruger
.22 rifle bought from a Queanbeyan gun dealer shortly before the murder.

The
dealer did not identify Mr Eastman as the buyer, but there were
suggestions from other witnesses that Mr Eastman had been seen at the
dealer's house. There was also evidence from witnesses about a
blue car similar to Mr Eastman's in a street near the Winchester family
home in the days before the murder. But
Mr Eastman's lawyer George Georgiou rejected the theories about the
motive, and questioned the evidence from those who sought to link Mr
Eastman to the crime. He took particular aim at the tapes which he said were of such bad quality as to be not appropriate evidence in a murder trial. Mr
Georgiou pressed the alternative theory it was a mafia hit, related to
Mr Winchester's involvement investigating drug crops outside Canberra. Police
said they had found no connection between the killing and Italian crime
groups, and the prosecution said it would be unlikely a professional
hit man would buy a gun from a dealer in Queanbeyan. The jury must
now decide whether there is enough evidence to prove, beyond a
reasonable doubt, Mr Eastman was the one who pulled the trigger. But
for two of the 14 jurors who have sat through the entire trial there
was bad news today. Their numbers were pulled out from a barrel, and
they learned their role in the trial had ended, leaving only 12 to deliberate:"

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this
case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on
developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than
twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the
harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into
pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.
The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related
to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith.
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination
process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of
interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

PASSAGE OF THE DAY; "Why is the state of Florida so reluctant to
allow Zeigler’s case back in court? Is there a chance he could be the
next Florida death row inmate to be exonerated?"
---------------------------------------------------------------STORY: "Florida man on death row for 42 years fighting for his life," by reporter Keith Cate, published by WFLA.com on October 29, 2018.

GIST: "It was a gruesome crime. Five people were gunned down in a furniture store in Winter Garden, Florida. Only
one made it out alive and that lone survivor is still dodging death
42-years later. “I didn’t do it,” Tommy Zeigler said. “They got a
conviction and here I am stuck. A judge overruled a jury and sent Tommy Zeigler to death row in 1976. Private investigator Lynn Marie Carty has spent years digging up evidence that she believes proves Tommy didn’t kill anyone. She showed us file folders packed with information about witnesses ignored or prevented from appearing at his trial. “This
was all hidden from the judge and the jury,” Carty said. “They didn’t
have all the information. The guy didn’t do anything and we kept him
there.” Zeigler swears he is innocent. What he wants is a new trial to clear his name. “They
can use every bit of that testimony,” Ziegler said. “They can bring it
all back into that courtroom and present it to a jury and let me present
what we have now.” Why is the state of Florida so reluctant to
allow Zeigler’s case back in court? Is there a chance he could be the
next Florida death row inmate to be exonerated?"

Read the Wikipedia account: "Controversy": " The case against Zeigler, and his trial, has been the subject of criticism by many, including civil rights activist Bianca Jagger, and a juror who opted to convict Zeigler.[6][4] Among the criticized points, was the judge who oversaw the trial, Maurice M. Paul; months prior to the murders, both Zeigler and Paul testified in an unrelated case on opposing sides.[2] Although the jury at Zeigler's trial recommended life imprisonment, Paul instead sentenced Zeigler to death.[4] At Zeigler's trial, one of the key eyewitnesses for the
prosecution, Felton Thomas, testified that on the night of the murders,
he, Zeigler, and Charlie Mays drove to an orange grove to fire some
guns. The prosecution believed that this was a plan from Zeigler to get
their fingerprints on the guns. In 2013, however, Thomas recanted parts
of his testimony.[7] In 2011, Zeigler's private investigator, Lynn-Marie Carty,
located a new eyewitness named Robert Foster, who, on the night of the
murders, attempted to rob a gas station across the street from Zeigler
Furniture Store. Don Frye, the lead investigator on the case, had lied
about Foster, saying his name was a typographical error.[8]Aftermath: Zeigler
was scheduled to be executed on October 22, 1982. However, the U.S.
District Court in Jacksonville stayed the execution due to new evidence.
Zeigler was then scheduled to be executed on May 20, 1986. The
execution was stayed, by the 11th Circuit Court, due to inadequate
representation.[9] In April 1988, Zeigler's death sentence was overturned.[10] Zeigler was re-sentenced and again given the death penalty.[2] In 2005, Zeigler's request for a new trial was denied after DNA tests failed to conclude that Charlie Mays was the perpetrator.[4] Zeigler's case was denied bloodstain DNA analysis in 2013 and 2016.[11][12] In April 2017, Zeigler's case was denied Touch DNA analysis.[13]In popular culture: Zeigler's case was featured on television program, Unsolved Mysteries.[14] A documentary entitled "A Question of Innocence" was released in 2014 about Zeigler's case, and the death penalty in the United States.[15] In 1992, a book was released by Phillip Finch on Zeigler's case, entitled Fatal Flaw: A True Story of Malice and Murder in a Small Southern Town."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Zeigler_case

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this
case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on
developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than
twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the
harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into
pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.
The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related
to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith.
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination
process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of
interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

PASSAGE OF THE DAY (1): "In what Greenspan said was an early attempt to cooperate
with police, he said he and his private team passed on information they
discovered when they examined the Sherman home, following the police
team’s own six-week examination. Among that information, Greenspan
said, were a series of “25 palm or fingerprint impressions” private
detectives found on surfaces of the house. Greenspan said the police
missed those during their examination. The meeting to pass on the palm
print evidence was May 17 and according to Greenspan the police were
receptive to the delivery of them. But the force has since retained a
lawyer to figure out a way to handle future deliveries of information
and there has been no further communication from the police on that
issue, Greenspan said. As to what, if anything, came from police
analysis of the palm prints, Greenspan says he does not know. Greenspan
was highly critical of the work of the Toronto police. He said when his
private team was granted access to the Sherman crime scene, his team
discovered that the locks had not been checked for tampering and the
carpets in the home had not been vacuumed by forensic experts.
Typically, vacuuming is done to find fibres and other evidence that
would escape the naked eye. Greenspan said he does not believe police
have yet completed an analysis of fingerprints found at the scene.
People who were known to have been in the Sherman home, for innocent
reasons, have yet to be fingerprinted, he said. Greenspan also
took issue with how, in the early stages of the case, Toronto officers
made comments that left the “wrong impression that this was a
self-inflicted crime, either a suicide or a murder-suicide.”

----------------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY (2): "Greenspan has set up a panel of experts to review the tips, and said he
has invited Chief Saunders to provide an officer to join that review
panel — an unusual partnership between police and private investigators.
Greenspan said he knows of no other instance in Canada where there has
been a similar partnership. He said his notion is that by providing
Sherman-paid resources it will “free the public purse from the burden of
the investigation” at a time when due to other cases the Toronto
homicide squad is “overtaxed” Asked if he would accept Greenspan’s
invitation, Chief Saunders said he wants to see the terms of reference,
and added police are open to being involved if the process would
withstand the scrutiny of the court of law. “If it meets the test than
definitely we’ll be involved,” he said. As previously reported by
the Star, the police did not rule the case a double murder until after a
Star story revealed that the Sherman family’s pathologist had made that
determination. The family’s pathologist determined it was a double
murder after taking note that the Sherman’s wrists had been bound, but
no ropes or other ties were found near the bodies. The information from
the second pathologist would not be considered by police for almost five
weeks, until a story in the Star revealed those details."

---------------------------------------------------------------

STORY:
"Family of Barry and Honey Sherman offers $10-million reward for
information on murder of billionaire couple," by Chief Investigative
Reporter Kevin Donovan, published by The Toronto Star on October 26,
2018.

PHOTO CAPTION (1): "Billionaire couple Barry and Honey Sherman were found dead in their home on Dec. 15, 2017."PHOTO CAPTION (2): "A police officer removes caution tape from the Sherman home after six weeks of searching the property in a Jan. 26 file photo."

GIST: "The
private investigation team assembled by the four children of Barry and
Honey Sherman announced a $10-million reward and something unprecedented
in Canadian history: a “public-private partnership” in which the
Sherman family’s detectives will obtain tips and information and pass
them on to the Toronto Police homicide squad. Catch the killer
based on one of those tips and the tipster receives “up to $10 million,”
Sherman family lawyer Brian Greenspan told media Friday. “We want to
light a fire under the Toronto Police,” Greenspan said. The
announcement was made just around the corner from where the Sherman
children’s murdered father started his multi-billion dollar generic drug
enterprise. Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders said later he
welcomed the offering of the reward, but did not wholeheartedly endorse
the Sherman family’s plan. Saunders
said he has concerns with how the integrity of any evidence or
information obtained by investigators not with the police would be
handled. In
launching what he called a new “initiative” in the case, Greenspan is
taking direction from Sherman children Jonathon, Alex, Lauren and
Kaelen. They are the heirs to a fortune of about $5 billion. The
bodies of Barry and Honey Sherman were discovered in their basement pool
room the morning of Friday, Dec. 15, 2017 by the Sherman’s real estate
agent, who was leading another agent and two clients on a tour of the
house on Old Colony Rd. The Shermans had put the house up for sale two
weeks earlier, at an asking price of $6.7 million. Barry
Sherman founded the Apotex generic drug firm in 1974 in a small
building in northwest Toronto near factories. It’s the site of a growing
complex of Apotex offices. The Greenspan press conference was held in
one of those buildings. Long time Apotex employees, who say they they
have been devastated by the loss of their founder, refer to the
intersection the buildings radiate from as “the corner of Barry and
Sherman.” Last December, when the Shermans’ agent came upon the
bodies in the pool room, she froze, then turned and hurried the clients
and the other agent back upstairs. The Shermans’ agent asked a woman who
was in the house watering orchids to go downstairs and confirm what she
had seen. She did. The agent then alerted a family member who was in
Florida, and, after some discussion, police were called to the scene.
Greenspan
said the police, when they arrived, completely misinterpreted the crime
scene. “They failed to recognize the suspicious and staged manner in
which their bodies were situated.” He described how Barry Sherman’s
“legs were outstretched with one crossed over the other in a passive
manner, wearing his undisturbed eyeglasses and his jacket pulled
slightly behind his back which would have prevented use of his arms.”
The Sherman couple had their backs against a low railing that surrounds
the pool, with leather belts around their neck and the free end wrapped
around “a railing forcing them into an upright position,” Greenspan
said. In what Greenspan said was an early attempt to cooperate
with police, he said he and his private team passed on information they
discovered when they examined the Sherman home, following the police
team’s own six-week examination. Among that information, Greenspan
said, were a series of “25 palm or fingerprint impressions” private
detectives found on surfaces of the house. Greenspan said the police
missed those during their examination. The meeting to pass on the palm
print evidence was May 17 and according to Greenspan the police were
receptive to the delivery of them. But the force has since retained a
lawyer to figure out a way to handle future deliveries of information
and there has been no further communication from the police on that
issue, Greenspan said. As to what, if anything, came from police
analysis of the palm prints, Greenspan says he does not know. Greenspan
was highly critical of the work of the Toronto police. He said when his
private team was granted access to the Sherman crime scene, his team
discovered that the locks had not been checked for tampering and the
carpets in the home had not been vacuumed by forensic experts.
Typically, vacuuming is done to find fibres and other evidence that
would escape the naked eye. Greenspan said he does not believe police
have yet completed an analysis of fingerprints found at the scene.
People who were known to have been in the Sherman home, for innocent
reasons, have yet to be fingerprinted, he said. Greenspan also
took issue with how, in the early stages of the case, Toronto officers
made comments that left the “wrong impression that this was a
self-inflicted crime, either a suicide or a murder-suicide.” He said the
conduct of the police in the early days of the probe “fell well below
the standard of how a reasonable officer in similar circumstances should
have acted.” Toronto Police Chief Saunders responded to these
criticisms, saying that police never reached a “premature conclusion”
that it was a case of murder suicide. The reason police initially said
that “there was no sign of forced entry” was because the north Toronto
neighbourhood where the Shermans lived had seen a spate of break-ins and
the officer was trying to reassure the public. “That community was
incredibly alarmed,” Saunders told the media. On Greenspan’s criticism
of the police probe, Chief Saunders said “we conclude that the
investigation was done well. “Everyone
is entitled to their opinion,” the chief told reporters gathered at
police headquarters. “But we don’t deal in opinions; we deal in facts.”
The
Toronto Police Services board issued a statement late Friday saying
Saunders has their complete confidence in regards to the Sherman murder
probe. Saunders said he supports the Sherman family decision to
offer a reward. “Hopefully, there are people out there that have an
understanding of information that can help with this investigation ….
Anything that helps lead to a successful conclusion, I think, is a good
thing.” Departing from protocol around rewards offered by police
or CrimeStoppers, lawyer Greenspan did not provide a police number to
the public. He provided two dedicated numbers set up by the Sherman
family. The tip line was up and running at 2 p.m. Friday.
Greenspan has set up a panel of experts to review the tips, and said he
has invited Chief Saunders to provide an officer to join that review
panel — an unusual partnership between police and private investigators.
Greenspan said he knows of no other instance in Canada where there has
been a similar partnership. He said his notion is that by providing
Sherman-paid resources it will “free the public purse from the burden of
the investigation” at a time when due to other cases the Toronto
homicide squad is “overtaxed” Asked if he would accept Greenspan’s
invitation, Chief Saunders said he wants to see the terms of reference,
and added police are open to being involved if the process would
withstand the scrutiny of the court of law. “If it meets the test than
definitely we’ll be involved,” he said. As previously reported by
the Star, the police did not rule the case a double murder until after a
Star story revealed that the Sherman family’s pathologist had made that
determination. The family’s pathologist determined it was a double
murder after taking note that the Sherman’s wrists had been bound, but
no ropes or other ties were found near the bodies. The information from
the second pathologist would not be considered by police for almost five
weeks, until a story in the Star revealed those details. The
Shermans were last spotted leaving Apotex headquarters two days earlier
on Wednesday, Dec. 13 — Honey at about 6:30 p.m. and Barry at about
8:30 p.m. They had a late-afternoon meeting with architects for a new
home in Forest Hill. Police theorize they both died that evening. Police
have conflicting thoughts on whether a reward helps in a criminal case,
and what the right time is to offer a reward. Some officers, whom the
Star spoke to on background because they were not authorized to speak
for the force, said there is always a concern a reward will “bring the
crazies out of the woodwork.” Assessing the veracity of tips from people
who may not have real information takes valuable police resources, they
said. Other officers and groups are in favour of rewards. The
CrimeStoppers program invites people to submit information anonymously
and offers modest rewards of up to $2,000 if a tip leads to an arrest. A 2011 Star story
revealed that often the rewards for providing legitimate information to
CrimeStoppers go unclaimed. One
of the few examples in Toronto of a reward being paid out in a murder
case was the 1986 murder of 11-year-old Alison Parrott. Several people
gave tips to police at the time of the killing, but the killer was not
arrested until a decade later. A $50,000 reward was paid out in that
case. The Toronto Star’s continuing investigation has revealed
shortcomings with the way the police investigation has progressed. The
Star has learned that police were slow to take DNA samples and
fingerprints from the many people who passed through the Sherman home in
the hours before the Shermans died. Police typically do this to
eliminate suspects and focus on DNA and fingerprints that are foreign to
a place where a crime was committed. In one case, a friend who was at
the Sherman home with the Shermans that Wednesday was not asked for
fingerprints and DNA until September, nine months after the murders. The
Star has also interviewed numerous people regarding their own
interviews with police. These people have said that detectives told them
they were perplexed at who did the crime. In one case, a woman
interviewed by police in the last two months said an investigator said,
“we are at loose ends.”"

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this
case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on
developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than
twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the
harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into
pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.
The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related
to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith.
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination
process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of
interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

About Me

My interest in forensic pathology began with my Toronto Star investigative reporting into once famed since disgraced former doctor Charles Smith. I began this Blog after retiring from the Star in 2006 in order to follow the aftermath into the independent Goudge inquiry into many of Smith's cases. I have now begun to focus on cases involving flawed forensic science no matter where they occur (the recent Amanda Knox prosecution in Italy, for example) and am fascinated by the interest in the Blog from people in countries throughout the world. In another development, my interest in "junk science" "pseudo-experts" and the miscarriages of justice they all too often cause has drawn me deeply into the on-going U.S. death penalty debate where so many troubling cases involve issues relating to DNA and other developments in the world of forensic science. For all of this I rely on my experience as a reporter at the Toronto Star, my work as a lawyer in Ontario's criminal courts, and my abhorrence of injustice. Please send cases and developments which may be of interest to this Blog to hlevy15@gmail.com. Read on! Harold Levy.